More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Steve Carr » Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:57:42


In article <C3C64830.A5333% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




LOL! You didn't merely point something out, you flatly stated "Bush is
guilty of breaking the law" and you stated that Bush is a "war criminal"
... and you stated these things based on evidence that you admitted
didn't show one single true thing from which something else could
necessarily follow to draw a conclusion (this was your definition of the



"Your argument asserted that a sitting President is a war criminal. You
agreed (a few paragraphs above) that the evidence you used to support
this was 'based on legalities' (based on the breaking, or not, of a
law)".

Your reply:
"Yes. Very good".

I answered:
"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion".


You then admitted this about your evidence:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof".
<BBFBA53B.34A2D% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >

Sane people are aware that evidence is supposed to actually make
something 'evident'. As the quote above shows, you admitted your
evidence contained no truth from which you could base a conclusion. Only
you would claim your argument was 'strongly supported' while
simultaneously admitting there was nothing true about your evidence. LOL!


LOL! OK, Mr. Teacher... whatever you say;)


BTW... here was my favorite line of yours from that argument:

"Evidence is not the same thing as proof. My argument does not prove
anything, it offers strong support for my case".

Most people present "evidence" as a form of proving their argument... in
your case, you somehow figure that an argument alleging guilt only needs
to be offer "strong support". Too much comedy;) - but that's not the way
it works... at least, not in the country you and I are both posting from.

--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Thufi » Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:57:20


He told me to take a course in logic, oh well.


-Thufir

 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Snit » Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:03:05

"Thufir" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
Q19oj.26257$4w.8779@pd7urf2no on 1/30/08 5:57 PM:



I made an argument that was so well supported that Steve, in *years* of
trying, failed to be able to refute. When speaking of people and events and
laws *nothing* is proved to the level of a logical or mathematical proof...
that is the standard Steve notes I did not live up to and this he claims my
argument was faulty.

Bush, clearly, went against the Constitution and broke the law. It really
is that simple.


--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Steve Carr » Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:50:28

In article <C3C6B2A9.A549E% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,





LOL! You parroted an argument you read somewhere... that you were unable
to comprehend. No less than a dozen people tried to explain the problems
with your stolen argument. Here's some more of the comedy you gave us...

Legal guilt? So Bush is *legally* guilty? Why hasn't this been reported?

Ah, so it's not legal guilt... Bush is morally guilty (according to
whose morals)?

The "logical argument" you said you had no proof for in a "logical
sense"?

Ah... it's the combo pack, of course, oh speaker of tautologies. LOL!




Yup... and when there isn't *one* thing that is true for which
"something else necessarily follows from it" there is *no* reason to
believe your unsupported guilt allegation.

...

Fact: You defined the word "proof" as you were using it, not I... and
you did so while simultaneously admitting your evidence had *none*.

"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof". - Snit
<BBFBA53B.34A2D% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >

Man... that must sting;)


Is that speaking legally, morally or logically? LOL!

--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Thufi » Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:42:39


You show no evidence of knowing how to make an argument nor refute one.


-Thufir
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Thufi » Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:44:41


Yes, this pattern fits with Snit where concepts are mingled and come out
the worse for it.


-Thufir
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Snit » Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:06:00

"Thufir" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
ZTfoj.28930$4w.4400@pd7urf2no on 1/31/08 1:44 AM:



Steve confused the idea of a logical argument that shows, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that Bush is guilty of breaking the law and a court case.
He deluded himself into thinking he as Perry Mason or Matlock and created
his own fictitious jury to try to convince. It was amazing to watch but is
long since over.

In the end it is and was clear that Bush went against the Constitution. Not
only have I shown this so have *hundreds* of law professors I pointed Steve
to (they signed a statement). Steve simply freaked out when he read that.
:)



--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Snit » Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:06:47

"Thufir" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
3Sfoj.28928$4w.15462@pd7urf2no on 1/31/08 1:42 AM:



Ah, the silly insult game:

You clearly do not know how to use the letter "m" on your keyboard!

How did I do?

--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
 
 
 

More Snit lies (Snit is *still* banging his head against that same wall of reality)

Post by Steve Carr » Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:04:33

In article <C3C731E8.A5565% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




... nothing.


... a "logical argument" for which, as I have already shown, you
admitted you had no proof for in a "logical sense"?

"While the evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly
supports it, it is not, technically, in a logical sense, proof". - Snit
<BBFBA53B.34A2D% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >

LOL!

--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit